Evolution question.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On what reason?

Answered in literally the very next sentence of my post.

 

[Hollie]

Modern man was created to have a relationship with God thus expanded mental (and spiritual) capacity. The others were not and were more or less brutish imitations.

A really terrible argument with nothing to support it. Firstly, you assume unique three in one gods simply because those are the gods which predominate western culture. You offer nothing to support the existence of these gods.

Secondly, you can mske whatever excuses you want to deny the fossil record and the dating of those fossils. That’s not going to change the fact that the fossil record shows a clear progression from early hominids with mostly ape-like features through more ‘modern’ looking humans.

 

[Woodznutz]

That's saying something different than "evolution is wrong".

Not really. All those parts came together pretty quickly. When producing something we first plan and design it, then contract for the parts and materials, then assemble it into the finished product. We don't produce a single unassociated part and stare at it until we conceive of a greater use for it, then repeat endlessly until some sort of useful product is created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not really. All those parts came together pretty quickly. When producing something we first plan and design it, then contract for the parts and materials, then assemble it into the finished product. We don't produce a single unassociated part and stare at it until we conceive of a greater use for it, then repeat endlessly until some sort of useful product is created.

Which just goes to show how flawed the apparent "design" of evolution is.

You keep inadvertently undermining your own assertions.

 

[Woodznutz]

A really terrible argument with nothing to support it. Firstly, you assume unique three in one gods simply because those are the gods which predominate western culture. You offer nothing to support the existence of these gods.

Secondly, you can mske whatever excuses you want to deny the fossil record and the dating of those fossils. That’s not going to change the fact that the fossil record shows a clear progression from early hominids with mostly ape-like features through more ‘modern’ looking humans.

I assume only two God-beings. The Holy Spirit is not a personage or a God.

Evolution assumes unbroken gradual changes leading to modern man. Is there any evidence that two or more of these iterations existed contemporaneously or did each appear only after the disappearance of the previous one.

 

[Woodznutz]

Which just goes to show how flawed the apparent "design" of evolution is.

You keep inadvertently undermining your own assertions.

Not so. I accept that science has identified lots of substances and lots of processes. However, I don't buy that those substances and processes produced all biological life in minute, unguided, increments over millions of years. The ecology of the earth is way too complex, and perfect, not to have come together rather quickly.

It's more a matter of common sense than religious belief. I rejected evolution long before I was called into the church. It just never made sense to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution assumes unbroken gradual changes leading to modern man. Is there any evidence that two or more of these iterations existed contemporaneously or did each appear only after the disappearance of the previous one.

Certainly both.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's more a matter of common sense than religious belief.

Both are equally useless, when it comes to knowledge.

We had common sense for 400,000 years. We had religion for 400,000 years. And the reason we had religion is because common sense is so useless. So we invented things that helped us go on with our day and feel like we understood the world.

 

[Hollie]

I assume only two God-beings. The Holy Spirit is not a personage or a God.

Evolution assumes unbroken gradual changes leading to modern man. Is there any evidence that two or more of these iterations existed contemporaneously or did each appear only after the disappearance of the previous one.

Evolution assumes nothing. As to unbroken gradual changes, that’s not at all accurate. Certain sub-species along evolutionary history did not survive, Neanderthal, for one example.

 

[Woodznutz]

Both are equally useless, when it comes to knowledge.

We had common sense for 400,000 years. We had religion for 400,000 years. And the reason we had religion is because common sense is so useless. So we invented things that helped us go on with our day and feel like we understood the world.

Common sense is accumulated knowledge and wisdom passed on informally, very useful. I invent all sorts of useful things using common sense and informally learned skills.

Most of our knowledge comes from experience and observation, not formal education.

The great value of religion is that is promotes, even compels, moral behavior.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Common sense is accumulated knowledge and wisdom passed on informally, very useful.

Not for this it isn't. That's why we had to invent science in the first place.

400,000 years of common sense... and people died from mild cuts and strep throat.

200 years of scientific medicine... antibiotics.

 

[Woodznutz]

Evolution assumes nothing. As to unbroken gradual changes, that’s not at all accurate. Certain sub-species along evolutionary history did not survive, Neanderthal, for one example.

The ToE itself is an unbroken chain of unproven assumptions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The ToE itself is an unbroken chain of unproven assumptions.

False.

That's how religious people think. They first assume something is true, then they scramble to make all incoming information comply with that assumption.

Scientists do the opposite. They draw conclusions from first examining the evidence. And if new information shows the conclusion to be false, they make new inferences and deductions.

 

[Woodznutz]

Not for this it isn't. That's why we had to invent science in the first place.

400,000 years of common sense... and people died from mild cuts and strep throat.

200 years of scientific medicine... antibiotics.

It's not either/or, both are needed. I depend on medical science for treatment of disease that won't heal naturally. But once healed I strive to avoid the doctors by being my own doctor as much as possible.

Recently I avoided some costly dental work by giving my body time to provide a remedy for what my dentist determined was a serious problem. Worked out well. I also stopped taking my post op meds that I was told I would need to take for the rest of my life. I'm doing fine.

 

[Woodznutz]

False.

That's how religious people think. They first assume something is true, then they scramble to make all incoming information comply with that assumption.

Scientists do the opposite. They draw conclusions from first examining the evidence. And if new information shows the conclusion to be false, they make new inferences and deductions.

The theory is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. Just read any scientific publication on the subject and note the unproven assumptions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not either/or, both are needed. I

Yet here you are, rejecting one of them.

Recently I avoided some costly dental work by giving my body time to provide a remedy for what my dentist determined was a serious problem

So what? That happens. Doctors are playing the best odds. They aren't issuing divine decrees from on high. And the data shows that most people who would do what you did would not fare so well.

Guess what is even more useless than 'common sense'? Anecdotal evidence. I.E., your story.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The theory is as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

You sure find that easy to say.

But you seem to find it impossible to argue.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Evolution assumes unbroken gradual changes leading to modern man.

Actually, no.

It assumes a series of fairly rapid adaptations to new environmental stresses (geologically speaking) between longer periods of near stasis.

It isn't really a consistently ascending line so much as it is a fairly parallel line punctuated with sudden leaps responding to new challenges.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yet here you are, rejecting one of them.


So what? That happens. Doctors are playing the best odds. They aren't issuing divine decrees from on high. And the data shows that most people who would do what you did would not fare so well.

Guess what is even more useless than 'common sense'? Anecdotal evidence. I.E., your story.

Doctors are lining their pockets, covering their asses, and promoting the industry at the expense of the health of the nation.

I have already stated that my experiences are of no value to anyone except me (food for thought however).

 

[Woodznutz]

Actually, no.

It assumes a series of fairly rapid adaptations to new environmental stresses (geologically speaking) between longer periods of near stasis.

It isn't really a consistently ascending line so much as it is a fairly parallel line punctuated with sudden leaps responding to new challenges.

I'll amend my statement.

Evolution assumes an unbroken series of changes leading to modern man, uninterrupted by destructive changes in the environment.